Hello and thank you for visiting AikiWeb, the
world's most active online Aikido community! This site is home to
over 22,000 aikido practitioners from around the world and covers a
wide range of aikido topics including techniques, philosophy, history,
humor, beginner issues, the marketplace, and more.

If you wish to join in the discussions or use the other advanced
features available, you will need to register first. Registration is
absolutely free and takes only a few minutes to complete so sign up today!

Thanks for the clarification, Demetrio. Do you know where Shiro was living before his judo training?

I suppose prior moving to Tokyo he was living in Aizuwakamatsu .

BTW, I've read he started to train with Hoshina Chikanori at age 9, but the same source (Habersetzer) also says Shiro name changing in 1884 was caused by his adoption via marriage with one of Hoshina's daughter, which I find strange.

Quote:

Also, as shown by Sagawa, Ueshiba, Kodo, etc, aiki can be trained from a distance with irregular hands on time with a teacher. Sort of hard to determine anything one way or the other.

However, if the proof of Saigo's aiki skills are his performance at the, maybe mythical, 1886 tournament, then we have nothing.

BTW, I've read he started to train with Hoshina Chikanori at age 9, but the same source (Habersetzer) also says Shiro name changing in 1884 was caused by his adoption via marriage with one of Hoshina's daughter, which I find strange.

That's actually quite common in Japan - the same thing happened when Nakakura Kiyoshi married Kaiso's daughter and changed his name to "Morihiro Ueshiba".

I think I mentioned this in HIPS, but Kano described Shiro at age 16 as being dedicated, but not exceptional, and also described him as tiring easily, so that he could practice with him too hard or too long. There certainly was this legend that developed about Saigo, but it actually developed and flourished much later. In HIPS, I did my best to suggest that the idea that Saigo Shiro studied martial arts, much less aiki from Tonomo Saigo was extremely dubious.

Once again, I am pleased to note that my semi-interpretation, semi-intuition, is now caught up with research.
The following links, mostly by researcher John Zyl, who has access to the Kodokan archives, give a remarkable counter view to the entire history of the early Kodokan, of which Saigo was a part (which includes politics and aikido as well).

But this is the period when Ueshiba rises to prominence. And I think he scared the sh!t out of the Kōdōkan.

If jūdō left behind the esoteric and the mystical aspects of Kitōryū (and ki is all over the place in Kitōryū and TJSYR) in favor of physics, if jūdō left behind the joint manipulation and striking in favor of a safe and healthy form of exercise … here was all of that stuff back from the dead, repackaged with the help of Oomotokyō. I've said this before but I think Ueshiba must have seemed like the ghost of jūjutsu past to Kanō -- everything he left behind risen from the grave.

Quote:

Some kind of a meeting or special course in 1886 that gets transformed into a duel in 1916 and then into an epic battle that showcases jūdō's inherent superiority in the late 20s and 30s.

What that suggests is the whole claim of Saigo Shiro learning Daito-ryu or whatever was yet another case of after the fact, "Oh, we do that too." (Note, too, that yama-arashi, his special incredible, must be from D-ryu technique is in all the early judo books, and I've seen films from the 1950's with a number of teachers demonstrating it - and it is sort of a midway technique between tai-otoshi and harai-goshi - - - -not anything resembling D-ryu.

What that suggests is the whole claim of Saigo Shiro learning Daito-ryu or whatever was yet another case of after the fact, "Oh, we do that too." (Note, too, that yama-arashi, his special incredible, must be from D-ryu technique is in all the early judo books, and I've seen films from the 1950's with a number of teachers demonstrating it - and it is sort of a midway technique between tai-otoshi and harai-goshi - - - -not anything resembling D-ryu.

While I understand some people have presented this theory, I really was hoping to go another direction with Saigo Shiro, rather than some Daito ryu connection. My question is could Shiro have learned internal skills from Tanomo?

If Takeda is being true and he attributes his learning "aiki" from Tanomo, why couldn't Shiro? All outside any "martial art" venue, which would explain why Shiro wasn't great at judo but could still hold his own, even win matches.

So, we could possibly have these informal competitions happening with judo people involved and let's say the Yoshin-ryu article has it right. The judo side wasn't doing so well. Would it be too much of a stretch to see Kano, etc finding Shiro and using his talents to help win a match ... or two? Then embellishing it to promote Judo?

Mark - because the reasons are that Kano had this kid at 16 and in his personal diary described him as an ordinary (but dedicated) kid. Furthermore, because he actually is not known to have spent much time with Tanomo at all: the adoption being a post-war adoption of an orphan to give him a name. Because there was no contemporary accounts whatsoever of Saigo possessing any kind of IT. What he was described as being was a phenomenon cat-like athlete, like this guy. Because the first accounts that suggested that Saigo had something from Tanomo came AFTER Ueshiba was getting well-known (and as Shishida's research shows, was opening teaching "how to beat judo" AND after his teacher, Takeda Sokaku, who was alleged as having studied from Tanomo, was also getting prominence.
Couple this with the fact that both Sagawa and Sato Keisuke (the one his leading student in terms of skill, so say many and the other, the most disinterested, no ax to grind whatsoever guy in the bunch, both assert confidently that Tanomo almost surely didn't teach Takeda.
1. Kano had a private school, teaching young men how to live and how to do judo. Among his teenage students was Saigo Shiro, somebody he described in private writings as, at that time, being easily tired, and that they couldn't practice together long. (In other words, we aren't talking about Kano recruiting a "sandbagger" to enter into tournaments. He was just a kid who associated with him before all these alleged tournaments.
2. He became a brilliant athlete, and with a lot of top competition in the dojo, flowered. His most remarkable quality, by contemporary reports were two things: he took ukemi like a cat. He could twist in mid-air and land on his front, which, if you are keeping score by back fall, as they did in jujutsu tournaments, is a good trait. Secondly, he is described as having prehensile toes - HIS yama-arashi was enhanced, so it was said, by him actually gripping the other guy's ankle with his toes. There is NOTHING, even in the many decade later accounts that describes IT.
3. Because long after he'd left the Kodokan - and after he'd died, so he couldn't refute anything - and after Ueshiba and Takeda were achieving increasing prominence, then the story arose.
4. Because two of Takeda's top non-familial disciples expressed doubt that Tanomo knew anything about martial arts. And because the historical record supports this. (notwithstanding my little caveat at the end of HIPS that there is a faint possibility that the family, as a whole, might have had the remnants of a martial art transmitted from China).
5. Given that there is good evidence to suggest that there was a jujutsu school in Aizu that had some kind of internal training, a ryu that his maternal grandfather was a master; given that his father very likely studied jujutsu from that grandfather, his father-in-law, as we know he studied spear and other arts from him; and given that Takeda, by report, manifested IT as a young teen, before he would have met Tanomo,it seems to me the really wonderful research would be to get to the Aizu area and find more records regarding that school.
8. Back to HIPS. My first chapter established that Chinese information was widely disseminated, what widely regarded, and widely accepted as a primary influence on Japanese martial arts. It's just that this hasn't been written about in English. There's nothing hidden about that. Japanese schools didn't hide it - witness Yoshin-ryu, witness Kito-ryu.
9. Finally, regarding katakana. I have a student notebook of the Araki-ryu, written in 1858. In successive sentences, the writer would use a kanji, then the same word in katakana, then a mixture of kanji and katakana, and then back to kanji. Didn't mean anything. Just taking notes.
Best
Ellis Amdur

While I understand some people have presented this theory, I really was hoping to go another direction with Saigo Shiro, rather than some Daito ryu connection. My question is could Shiro have learned internal skills from Tanomo?

1. Kano says Saigo Shiro tires easily. From this we can deduce that he had no training?

"And Sokaku used to give short lessons, about 10 or 15 minutes each, 4 or 5 times a day. " (DR Aiki Jujutsu by Okamoto, pg. 17) So according to Kano's standards, Takeda Sokaku wasn't very good (because he didn't teach long), but he did say that Takeda's art (thru Ueshiba) was true Budo. AAAAHHHHH! Subtle neural rewiring.

Occasionally we do Gracie J.J. (very simplified curriculum) in class and afterwards any subtle techniques are difficult because -- different operating systems. Not better (well maybe) but different.

The Kodokan system under Kano stressed competition, a restricted curriculum, no wrist techniques and elimination of some dangerous techniques (Judo can STILL hurt you). Thus aerobic capacity came to a forefront in matches. While Takeda Sokaku certainly got his aerobic points with his walking I don't see him running marathons or doing wind sprints.

And let me repeat, Sagawa DID, repeat DID say that Takeda Sokaku said he learned aiki from Saigo Tanonmo (Takeda also said this to his son). Now Sagawa may not have believed him, but HE SAID IT.

2. Prehensile toes -- uh did he have to wear those special orthopedic zori? It is a Daito ryu technique, not an anatomical oddity.

3. Doing research on American Civil War stuff, I have traveled to several ‘home' locations. While I have learned neat and additional things, I am always surprised that I know more than the people actually living in the houses that were owned by Civil War generals. In many cases their information is wrong.

There is a language barrier. There is a lack of records. I have been to a Police Jujutsu tournament (back when Gracie J.J. was starting to make open inroads, saw a beautiful jumping aerial arm bar!) There were very few people in attendance. But someone probably still talks about that great technique done there. Let's be honest, more people know about the characters on ‘Glee' than know how good Ellis is at Araki ryu. By about a factor of 100,000. Or more.

4. Tanomo got the mojo. See end of 1. How many people know that Ho Chi Minh practiced Tai Chi Chuan (and supposedly while in America collected newspaper headlines about black lynchings in the south). Takeda Sokaku said Tanomo only taught two people. ‘Uh, Uh, hey, I know this really secret art and I only taught two people but I want the wooooorrrrrld to know.'

5. Regarding the Aizu info, I have before mentioned, especially information from "Remembering Aizu, the Testament of Shiba Goro", the Boshin War and such is a gold mine to find the roots of Daito-ryu. Language barrier.

8. While it may be hidden in plain sight, it is still hidden. Saigo Tanomo taught TWO people supposedly.

9. Xenophobic language. Deal with it.

The Mountain Wind in autumn time
Is well called hurricane
It hurries cane and twig along
And whirls them o'er the plain
To scatter them again.
9th century poem, Yashuide

Yama arashi (Mountain Storm) is a Daito ryu technique. Other arts (like Kodokan Judo) may have similar named techniques but so what. I talked to a sumo practitioner (Sumo is not a martial art -- it is an eating disorder!) about some of their techniques: same but with different names in Judo.

One person says it is Yama otoshi from the Sekiguchi ryu of Jujutsu (described as haraigoshi / seoinage), while Danzan ryu is a collar break, Obata sensei has his version, Bernie Lau describes the DR version as a sort of uchimata -- inner thigh throw with a ‘rokyo' wrist lock.

While showing it to a high-ranking Hakko ryu instructor (a derivative of DR), he immediately knew it as a henka off a wrist trap. When this version was shown by a senior to him, they commented to use a ‘sweep' to enhance the technique.

Whether a ‘true' technique or a modification by Saigo Shiro to handle the two handed uniform grab in the Kodokan Jujutsu system (which prohibited wrist techniques), it is a DR technique. I can send you the page number but the book is already out-of-print.

Scott Harrington

P.S. Yama arashi is also the name for the porcupine (similar creature), thus a truly prickly waza.

Wonderful reply with a lot to consider. And I certainly do not wish to quibble about what is - in my opinion - "more" plausible. Nonetheless, a couple points:
#1

Quote:

Kimura: "it is said that Shiro Saigo won against jujutsuka by the technique called Yama-Arashi [mountain storm]. Is this a tehcnique of Daito-ryu?"
Sagawa: "No. I don't think so. . . . It's said that Aiki was transmitted to Takeda Sensei by Hoshina/Saigo Sensei, although I believe that it was actually Takeda Sensei who created it.
When I look at the photograph of Tanomo Saigo . . . , I simipy cannot believe that he could have done Aiki. Even when sitting, those who have been trained and those who haven't seem different. he might have learned a littel bit of the form only, but I think it was something that Takeda Sensei created. . . .Nor have I ever heard that Tanomo Saigo was a master. (Transparent Power, pp 119-120)

#2 - Mr. Obata clearly states that he made his version up.
#3 - no porcupines in Japan. Just saying. Any reference to porcupines are the same as references to "arai-guma" -washing bears, aka racoons, well after sustained contact with America. I know, you were just having fun, but for the record.

Truly, where I come down to is this: Occam's Razor:
1. There was a jujutsu art in Aizu, which was an otome-jutsu. It has roots in Itto-ryu, which has had an IT training component for hundreds of years, related clearly to doctrines passed originally from China.
2. It was practiced by Takeda Sokaku's grandfather, who was the bujutsu teacher of Takeda Sokaku's father, who taught him martial arts, AND as a teenager, Takeda was winning sumo tournaments against brawny adults, before he had other bujutsu training. (Unlike Saigo, who couldn't even hang with Kano for very long, Takeda was running the line in tournaments, fwiw).
3. (All this aside from the psychological aspect of things which I proposed in HIPS).
4. All I'm saying is that there is this wonderful avenue of research that no one has tapped. If it's a blind alley, then one is left with, I believe, three alternatives.

a. Tanomo, after all
b. Takeda Sokaku, with all his training in so many arts, found the principle buried (he, too, resurrecting HIPS).
c. Takeda pieced it together from various partial transmissions from each of the various ryu he learned and audited.

But surely, as there are scholars on the history of Aizu and the Nishinkan, it would be a meritorious bit of research to find the substance of Shinmyo-ryu jujutsu and it's subset Inegami Shinmyo-ryu.

I really don't care either way, but neither can I support the lack of logic in some of the arguments.It's not supported well enough to be even close to definitive so we should all remain a bit more open.

I still am waiting for a credible argument that should allow any of us to call Takeda a liar about what he stated about learning Aiki from Tanamo. And let's not forgot that he also said it to others.
When I am asked to consider doubting his credibility I look at other things he said and try to paint a picture.
What kind of fraud and liar would miss the chance to call himself Soke
refuse to call himself Shihan
refuse to claim rank
So did Tokimune
A lawyer might ask "Just who...are we and what have we brought to court today to defame these men and call their word into question?.
They seem MORE credible than Sagawa.
That's why I am waiting for a credible argument to believe Sagawa over Takeda.

Why
I am waiting for an argument WHY Takeda would have lied. Give me some plausible motivation...something that has some measure of credibility enough that I should call into the doubt the reputation of a master class Martial artists over ...who? And for what?

Let's start a dialogue of how Sagawa could be the liar if we are going to use him to refute Takeda. I mean heck why not, right? I will start.
*Sagawa the self promoter saying he learned aiki at 17.
Wait for it.............
He didn't learn to create an aiki body till later.
Okay fellas,

*What is the difference between the IP he gained through his conditioning later in life to him stating he learned aiki at 17?_____________________
How can that be? Where does it make sense? It does make sense and it could explain Shiro as well if we want to beat that horse again..

I am waiting for an argument to connect aiki to the Internal power training in some of the Koryu. It has NEVER been presented. Power is not aiki. Internal power will greatly help get you there but it is not aiki.

In agreeing with Scotts points about weakness V more aggressive arts.
let's also use Sagawa (heck why not he seems to be the poster boy)
Sagawa stated he gained more power and aiki in his seventies GREAT.
Sagawa was noted for being physically weak too.
So.......

1. How does this relate to Sagio Shiro_________________________
2. Takeda lied because_______________________
3. Sagawa and ONLY Sagawa is right and should be listened to as a better source of information because________________
4. Sagawa by mentioning his getting aiki at 17 thus by default is now differentiating (just as I have always done when discussing IP/aiki) the difference between IP and aiki. That is yet another issue.
As I said to Peter and Ellis right here;
a) if you don't know these things you
b) may or may not ask the right questions in the first place
c). might not look for the right hints
d) thus you end up making connections that can be tenuous or even meaningless
e). Miss things that are truly hidden in plain site when looking for DR's source of aiki.
d) Separating the two IP and aiki can potentially negate or call into question the entire line of reasoning of Koryu IP and DR aiki all together.

5. Once again the use of weird Japanese with the "indoor disciple used in the ICMA to this idea of "inside the threshold" model of oshiki uchi. Wasn't it only Tokimune who said it was because of the protection of the Daimyo or Shogun.

Again, as my PA relatives would say..."don't mean beans to me." but there is not one thing being presented here that is definitive.
All the best anyway
Dan

Ay yi yi, here I go again.
Dan -
1. The only evidence ever given that Saigo Shiro learned "aiki" from Tanomo is that someones - journalists, writers, definitely no contemporary martial artist asserted this decades after the fact. Absolutely no one who was contemporary ever asserted that Saigo was different in his judo skills than anyone else. My son is a pro boxer. Saigo, to me, is the equivalent if, decades after I die, and decades after my son has retired from the ring, someone asserts that his knockout power was derived from Araki-ryu. ("It has to be. E. Amdur was his dad!"). It would be another matter if there were even ONE anecdote of Saigo doing anything like the things that Takeda is on record of doing many times, or, for that matter, that Nango Jiro of the Kodokan, is described as doing in Harrison's book when he used "hara" to make himself unthrowable. The pathetic truth is that entire "proof" re Saigo Shiro is: Really good judoka - adopted by Tanomo - must have had aiki.

RE the whole Takeda kerfluffle. Let me use you, my friend, as an example: You have been quite careful over the years in how you refer to your former instructor in Daito-ryu (just about everyone who cares knows who I'm talking about, but I'll respect the intent). At the same time, you've been inconsistent. I once found an old post in some news group in which you explicitly stated who your teacher was, without equivocation.
Anyway, people have made all sorts of assumptions about why you've done this - some publicly, some offensively, and mostly wrong. You have your own personal reasons for this. The result of this has been, among other things, that people have asserted that what knowledge you have can't be from Daito-ryu (after all, you are not a menkyo kaiden) but <maybe> from Daito-ryu plus an amalgam of things you've figured out, put together, etc. I'm not getting into what's what here - like popeye, you is what you is, and it's up to you to describe it, teach it, whatever Your personal reasons, in your case, for not claiming certain history - at least in a certain way - has led to assumptions about you.
Given the ONLY evidence of Tanomo having aiki/teaching aiki is Takeda's assertion that he was his teacher - {AND HE WAS HIS TEACHER - THAT MUCH IS TRUE, THE QUESTION IS OF WHAT?}, it is also, in an interesting reverse mirror of the famous instructor Dan Harden, that Takeda may have chosen to tell his story in a certain way - for personal reasons. And by the way, given that Takeda asserted that one manifestation of aiki was his ability to read people, to sort them by rank, etc., it is quite conceivable that he could, in one breath assert that Tanomo had "aiki," referring to the ability to manipulate social relations, and that this was, synonymous with the other "aiki" ("not Internal PowerTM") that he did.

I very well could be very wrong. Maybe Tanomo really was one of the hidden masters - the one's whom no one ever saw do a lick of martial arts, including, perhaps his best friends - maybe so.

But how can you claim that a jujutsu ryu that fueled the top man of his era (Takeda's grandfather) didn't have "aiki," when no one has investigated the substance of it's curriculum, even though it was one of only two otome ryu in Aizu? And the stories about Kanenori are at least as incredible as those re Takeda? How can you assert that others, such as the Kito-ryu master I described in HIPS were not manifesting the same things. (I really loved the judo scholar referring to Ueshiba as a ghost risen from the grave that Kano dug for Kito-ryu - which, btw, used the term "aiki" for some of what they did - goodness gracious). How can that not be of relevance? You say "aiki" is unique? Well, how was it transmitted in secret, given that the public story is so unrealistic and fantastic (a rather widely disseminated art among non-familial hatamoto, pages of the court, in addition to family, and no one revealed it? That is about as likely as the secret satanic cults that were so pervasively active among American daycares in the 1980's).

As for aiki not being "internal powerTM," you're right, I don't have a clue. Don't know the distinction, and I could only take it on faith that you do. No disrespect, but because of the way you've told your history, others (not me) have claimed you don't have a clue what aiki, whatever it is, is. I have no idea if you showed someone like Feng Zhi Qiang or Chen Xiao Wang what you do if they would say, "my goodness, this is not internal powerTM, this is something else!!!!") And in fact, if/when we next get together and you show me the most incredible psychophysical skills I've ever experienced, I may say "that's amazing," but as for aiki, the only thing I'll know about it is that you ASSERT that it's aiki. Will menkyo kaiden Daito-ryu people assert the same? Kimura? Kondo? Okamoto? Amazing, it may be. But who gave your skills the imprimature that it's "aiki." Heck, Sagawa says no one, including the other lines from Takeda had it. Is yours different from his? How would you know? Or can you tell from looking at Sagawa's photograph, like he would claim. . . .

BTW - read the above carefully, so there is no misunderstanding between us. I have not, in the above, questioned your knowledge of what you know, of what you can do, or your lineage. I'm simply saying that assertions that this is "aiki" don't prove anything either.

And this word "liar" in regards to Takeda. This is the man who gave Ueshiba a menkyo in, Yagyu Shinkage-ryu, even though there is NO evidence that he studied it - and he did NOT put a keizu - lineage - on the makimono, which is REALLY "unJapanese" and "suspicious" to boot. So we have a precedent for Takeda architecting his facts to express a personal truth already. And it didn't apparently trouble Ueshiba either. He kept it. He didn't question it as false, did he?

You sound silly to me to use such terms as "defame" or "liar" in regards to what I have said. I will confidently assert I've given Takeda more honest, human respect than just about anyone who has written about him. As for lying, I lived in Japan for 13 years, as you know, and many koryu instructors were fable makers - and I didn't consider one of them a liar. They told a story that was truer than the truth. (One man said to me, "You Americans don't value the truth. You tell it to anyone. We Japanese value the truth much higher. We only tell the truth to people we care about.")

Kimura: "it is said that Shiro Saigo won against jujutsuka by the technique called Yama-Arashi [mountain storm]. Is this a tehcnique of Daito-ryu?"
Sagawa: "No. I don't think so. . . . It's said that Aiki was transmitted to Takeda Sensei by Hoshina/Saigo Sensei, although I believe that it was actually Takeda Sensei who created it.
When I look at the photograph of Tanomo Saigo . . . , I simipy cannot believe that he could have done Aiki. Even when sitting, those who have been trained and those who haven't seem different. he might have learned a littlle bit of the form only,[insert WHAT?... FORM?] but I think it was something that Takeda Sensei created. . . .Nor have I ever heard that Tanomo Saigo was a master. (Transparent Power, pp 119-120)

"Seems different...."
"I believe..."
"Nor Have ...I.. heard...."
Well of course if ...Sagawa... had not heard, well then...it simply cannot be so can it?
Hhmmm.....
So, Sagawa calls into question Takeda's word, Takeda's reputation...from the way a guy looked in a photograph?
Well that settles that. Lets throw that 'ol Tanamo under the bus too.

Um...lets take a look at a seated photo of Liu ChengDe and compare it to a seated photo of Li Chugong, and compare it to a seated picture of Kodo and Sagawa, to a seated picture of Sony Chiba and Jae hun Kim of TKD and let's size people up and call mens word into question from our learned analysis shall we

As usual, we are not going anywhere. Dan, you often selectively single out one item in a post and focus on it.
1. I merely quoted Sagawa because Scott previously used him to support the assertion that Tanomo was Takeda's teacher. I countered it with a direct quote to the contrary. Facts do matter, at least in so far as what Sagawa said - whether you believe him or not is another issue. You have previously, quite happily quoted Sagawa's assertion that he grabbed Ueshiba and he was immobilized. Maybe he was making that up as well. Do you have a roadmap to tell when Sagawa is being factual and when he is on an agenda? You (and I am no different) cherry pick "evidence" to support ideology at times.
2. As I said, Sato Keisuke clearly stated that he did not believe Tanomo was the martial teacher of Takeda - and gave clear and cogent reasons why. Sato was so trusted by the Takeda family that they delegated him as the one individual (not Sagawa, fwiw) to go to the old man and suggest that he stop traveling, as he was so old. Sato was respected (and apparently loved by Takeda as well) because he, unlike almost all those guys, had no ax to grind, was not grandiose, and wasn't a climber who wanted some kind of status - which, I think, encompasses most of the other main Daito-ryu guys. Sato's statement, quoted in Stanley's book, was, for me, the most impressive "evidence" I came across.

Dan, you try to have it both ways. You sling words like defamation and liar, but you've accused the Yoshinkan of a cover-up regarding the true nature of Shioda's few sessions with Horikawa - which would be calling him a liar, as it were, given that Shioda asserted that he learned everything from Ueshiba, and an official representative of the Yoshinkan, while clearly endorsing the sessions Shioda had with Horikawa, supporting that.

Like everyone else in these sometimes fun, sometimes tedious discussions, you, too, have your own ideology, or you would have let me natter on without contributing your own thoughts (among which you accused me of defaming Takeda and calling him a liar, neither of which I did).

Here's another example. My Araki-ryu teacher said, in reference to a brilliant bout by Chiyonofuji, the sumotori, "That's Araki-ryu." Liar!!!!! Chiyonofuji never took an Araki-ryu class in his life!

Here's another example. The same man said of aikido, "That's not budo." (Given that he had his own definition of budo which was an activity that focused explicitly on practicing to kill people, he was right - for him.).

"For the first time in my life, I want a mature relationship," said a lovely Japanese woman to me. "Me too," I replied. Didn't realize that what she meant was 24-7 exclusive and total contact.

In each case, the words, as are so typical in Japanese fashion, are used as adjectives, based, often, on a personal meaning, rather than as "existents."

So here's where I conclude my participation in this round of the same old grind. You, I and the others involved in such discussions can only offer opinions. Some based on historical facts (no one ever described Saigo as having any skills that sound like aiki, for example) and some by osmosis ("I have an actual understanding of aiki, so I can understand history in a way different than you").

BTW - since you always - always - write, "hidden in plain site," is there a hidden meaning in that? Are you hiding something different from my "hidden in plain sight?"

The fact that you assert that your undeniable skills are the "aiki" of which Takeda, Horikawa, Ueshiba or Sagawa speak (at least one, maybe more parties would assert that they did not do the same thing), that doesn't prove anything to me. It's circular. Scott Harrington, (Hi Scott) whom you have aligned yourself for the nonce, studies some kind of Daito-ryu. You guys agree, more or less, in this thread. Would that change if you put hands on each other and one asserted, "you suck." Let's say Scott finds your "aiki" has a high suckability quotient? Would that change the validity of your assertions here? It seems, according to your lights, that it does matter, since you say you are using your physical ability in aiki to evaluate vague historical claims in English, including probably mistranslated quotes which, in any event, can have cultural nuances, that you are very likely not aware of. (Sorry Dan, you have a lot of knowledge that I do not have, but I still dream in Japanese, and sometimes use it to think about things for which I cannot find an English equivalent).
At the end of HIPS, I gave a list of several pages of genuine avenues of research that could establish some of these otherwise endless suppositions. Were people so inclined, we might even get some answers!
(Note: Here's an interesting one. A long term student of one offshoot of Kodokai asserted that Horikawa did not emphasize hanmi at all, because of his understanding that Daito-ryu/aiki was derived from Japanese dance - gagaku - at it's core rather than the sword)!!!!!!! (Just like I speculated about in HIPS, that there may be some kind of Internal training TM in gagaku, just as Tokimune asserted).This was in response to my question why many Japanese writers asserted that the Kodokai, in particular, did things differently than other factions of DR.

There is so much rich information out there, based on genuine historical records, genuine cultural heritage that the whole picture could easily change if only people cared enough to start digging.

Finally, read the last lines of HIPS again. I not only didn't rule out Tanomo, I publicly, at least, provide the first outside nugget of evidence that there COULD be something to the story. So don't accuse me of defamation.

Interesting reply. I see you are taking this personally as a commentary on you. I am addressing twenty years of dialogue, first addressed by Stan, that to date still does not answer the question! If I wanted to address you personally I would have directly. And yes I am well aware of your comments about Tanamo, as well as the source for them and in my mind that still leaves the question open does it not?.
1. Tanamo could or could not have known something that changed Takeda's game
2. There is no actual evidence that Takeda lied about it?
3.Sagawa and Sato's opinions are inconclusive.

I think my questions were fairly simple. I see no clear answers here.but rather a lot of frustration and anger..

I won't address the Shiro debate because I really don't care. As I said in my post "if you care to beat that dead horse again..."

You continually misread me when I discuss DR. You presume I am stating that ONLY DR has aiki. Because of that point you miss most of what I say..Oddly, no where do I ever state it. Let me throw this out there to help put things in better perspective for you. I believe that LCD has aiki. That assessment was also made of him by two of Sagawa's students who trained with him as well..He thought I was doing Chansi jin from Taiji. So...there ya go. I don't have those prejudices, nor do I give a shit. If I did, I would have had a different course for my life.
So ..try to listen. I am only...only... discussing what Takeda attributes as the source of HIS aiki.
I don't see an agreed upon definition of "aiki" as being relative to the point of Takeda's claims. Can you make a relevant argument for that as well? In fact I could care less what you personally think about aiki. Nor I for that matter. As an investigation I am more concerned with what the subject thought it to be and where he attributed it came from, and what can be proved or disproved of the statement..

When it comes to me, I did read your reply very carefully. I question your need to bring me into the narrative, but hey...go for it, I don't appreciate the "famous teacher comment" either, and you knew I wouldn't. Expediency rarely trumps forethought, Ellis. How about you make your points without me? We're just debating a very narrow point, Do you mind demonstrating for me how drawing me into the narrative makes a compelling argument for Tanamo not giving aiki to him? ..
Since we are second guessing and using interviews and quotes, I will take the summation of what Takeda often discussed when he used the word "aiki" over a throw away singular quote on mind reading. Incidently, there was and is much discussion about what ki does and how it manifests itself spiritually and the effect it has on people. I am not going there, but it is well within the narrative on ki.
That's on him and I consider it to be as relevant and not -discounting as a point of debate- as Ueshiba's quotes on the spiritual aspects that...you...use frequently. They actually match in ways you can even read today with Ushiro's thoughts on Ki..

None of this is so much a right and wrong with me. Why are we taking it that far?
Are you stating you have arrived at or made definitive conclusions on any of these matters? Really?
I haven't.

As for this notion of Mastery and Tanamo having to be a great Martial artist:.
1. Do you suppose that when Sagawa discovered aiki at 17 he considered himself a great master? Do you think he could have turned around and taught it to someone then and there?
2. Do you suppose that when Takeda said "I don't let people watch because what I do is simple enough that people can steal it.." that this was just more budo nonsense?
3. How about there are certain principles and constants that can be taught in a short time frame that then... take decades to master.
Case in point:
A certian Koryu teacher once said he could teach the entire art in a year and half. The student would suck but it would be his. Then...he would take 20 years to absorb it.
There are men who arrive at Menkyo in 8 years of part time training. Others 11, still others 20..
Is there is a reason to discount that idea as an explanation when you seem to embrace so many others?

There are many things that I have found historically problematic about DR and Takeda's story. We have discussed these things at length as well as what I was told about the source of the Makimono as well. I reserved my doubts about certain items based on what I was told, interviews, and how things also stacked up to the "norm," and what he might have done or not done. We should be careful to examine what could have been questionable opposed to stating things were pure fabrications manufactured out of whole cloth.

As for the Japanese Koryu teachers example of truth:
I appreciate the common presumptions of the simple nature of discourse alluding to the person being a simpleton,,juxtaposed to the notion of how your teacher's example makes people seem interesting, complicated, sophisticated and intelligent. I have done business with people like that for decades. Thanks for reminding me why there is a reason I judge my friends with different standards!

Again nowhere do I see anything addressing how Tanamo could or could not have in fact taught him something that changed his game nor why Tanamo had to be some acknowledge MASTER to have it himself.
All the best
Dan.

(Note: Here's an interesting one. A long term student of one offshoot of Kodokai asserted that Horikawa did not emphasize hanmi at all, because of his understanding that Daito-ryu/aiki was derived from Japanese dance - gagaku - at it's core rather than the sword)!!!!!!! (Just like I speculated about in HIPS, that there may be some kind of Internal training TM in gagaku, just as Tokimune asserted).This was in response to my question why many Japanese writers asserted that the Kodokai, in particular, did things differently than other factions of DR.

Forgot about this one.
Other long time Students asserted that Shizentai was used as a natural posture instead of a martial "ready" stance and since it was weaker it made you stronger. It also makes certain waist control movements prevelant. You can see some of this in Okomoto's explanations....

On the dance idea. As you know I taught a couple of dancers. One was fascinated by some of the descriptions of oppossing forces in six directions and the typcial spine work because she had read it from an old Japanese dance source. She brings in a book (too long of a story but it was part of a museum exhibition and gift from Japan to America. A translation of a Noh schools training in book form from the late 1700's. in it there it was definitive language for opposing forces from the hara and being suspended from your head in order to maintain balance and "float."
Cheers
Dan
P.S. You thinking I was assigning defamation of Takeda to you was really a weird twist, Ellis? Also of Tanamo, since your source was the first, plausible, connection to possible ICMA training in Tanamo's family. Moreso when you consider I already knew about both points.FROM YOU...how in hell would you think I was singling out YOU? I mean..that's pretty funny. Were you drinking at the time?

2. As I said, Sato Keisuke clearly stated that he did not believe Tanomo was the martial teacher of Takeda - and gave clear and cogent reasons why. Sato was so trusted by the Takeda family that they delegated him as the one individual (not Sagawa, fwiw) to go to the old man and suggest that he stop traveling, as he was so old. Sato was respected (and apparently loved by Takeda as well) because he, unlike almost all those guys, had no ax to grind, was not grandiose, and wasn't a climber who wanted some kind of status - which, I think, encompasses most of the other main Daito-ryu guys. Sato's statement, quoted in Stanley's book, was, for me, the most impressive "evidence" I came across.

Ellis Amdur

Hi Ellis,

In between you and Dan going round and round and making my head spin, can I ask something about the above? IF aiki could be taught separate from any martial training, then Sato Keisuke could actually be telling the truth, couldn't he? Whether Sato Keisuke actually knew what Tanomo taught Takeda would be hidden under that answer. It would be a very Japanese way of answering a question without really answering the questions, wouldn't it?

And, if you don't mind enterig in the realms of wild speculation on the dancing idea, what could have Sokaku learned during his tour with a circus/vaudeville group. Could have he learned something while on tour with Lulu Hurst japanese equivalents, strongmen, acrobats, dancers, impoverished (but skilled) samurai accepting challenges from any comers and the like?

BTW, Ueshiba taught dancers too and I think I've read somewhere he awarded one a high rank,

I very well could be very wrong. Maybe Tanomo really was one of the hidden masters - the one's whom no one ever saw do a lick of martial arts, including, perhaps his best friends - maybe so.

But how can you claim that a jujutsu ryu that fueled the top man of his era (Takeda's grandfather) didn't have "aiki," when no one has investigated the substance of it's curriculum, even though it was one of only two otome ryu in Aizu? And the stories about Kanenori are at least as incredible as those re Takeda? How can you assert that others, such as the Kito-ryu master I described in HIPS were not manifesting the same things. (I really loved the judo scholar referring to Ueshiba as a ghost risen from the grave that Kano dug for Kito-ryu - which, btw, used the term "aiki" for some of what they did - goodness gracious). How can that not be of relevance? You say "aiki" is unique? Well, how was it transmitted in secret, given that the public story is so unrealistic and fantastic (a rather widely disseminated art among non-familial hatamoto, pages of the court, in addition to family, and no one revealed it? That is about as likely as the secret satanic cults that were so pervasively active among American daycares in the 1980's).

Best
Ellis Amdur

Ellis,

It appears that you equate "aiki" with martial validity and skills from the above section. Could you clarify if that is so? I would put forth a different theory that does not equate all aiki skills with martial skills.

I'm fairly sure that there are koryu out there (I could be wrong since I don't know a lot about koryu) and there were koryu out there that had in their training methodology a way, a manner in which instilled certain body skills. These training methods rebuilt the body to work a specific way. Now, here is where my questions enter into this whole discussion.

While overtly, these training methods do rebuild the body to move in a certain way that is more martially valid, that rebuilds the body to be structurally more solid yet also freely mobile, and to wield weapons in a very capable manner, why does not mean that these training methodologies teach other internal specific skills such as intent created spirals? Certain internal skills are directly transmitted in a manner that can be completely outside weapons or jujutsu training. IMO, certain of these internal skills might not have been included in koryu.

Is it really such a stretch to look at Takeda's martial teachers and find that they, indeed, did have the training to build a very structural, martial body that was above other training methodologies but yet did not have the complete internal set of skills that Takeda eventually had? We only have to look at Tenryu to see that Ueshiba built upon his sumo training which had already given Tenryu a very solid foundation. While that foundation allowed Tenryu to progress very rapidly, it did not help him against Ueshiba.

When Tanomo enters the picture, why must we assign him to some martial prowess to prove that he had internal skills? As we know, there are and were people who studied internal skills extensively just for health and did not care to fight with them. Given that Takeda already had a very solid foundation in internal structure and other things, why is it such a leap to think that Tanomo might have completed Takeda's training with "aiki" as Takeda defined it? All outside a martial context, which Takeda merged with his martial nature.

And, if you don't mind enterig in the realms of wild speculation on the dancing idea, what could have Sokaku learned during his tour with a circus/vaudeville group. Could have he learned something while on tour with Lulu Hurst japanese equivalents, strongmen, acrobats, dancers, impoverished (but skilled) samurai accepting challenges from any comers and the like?

BTW, Ueshiba taught dancers too and I think I've read somewhere he awarded one a high rank,

Demetrio,

We could be wildly speculative.

But, consider that among all of the things we know about Takeda, nowhere do we hear of Takeda being a liar. What does Sagawa say? He *believes* Takeda got aiki elsewhere because of studying a photo of Tanomo and some mention of not being a martial master. And then what does Sagawa say? He might have learned a little bit of the form only.

So, we, too, have Sagawa saying that he thinks all the "martial" skills were from others, but he also says that Tanomo might have taught Takeda something ... outside of martial mastery. Hmm ... oshiki uchi as the indoor disciple being taught some internal skills to enhance the martial skills (Again, with Takeda, these martial skills were both external and internal). Perhaps, the entirety of internal skills were not from Tanomo, but there are indications that something was taught. Something which Takeda defined as his "aiki" later on.

And, if you don't mind enterig in the realms of wild speculation on the dancing idea, what could have Sokaku learned during his tour with a circus/vaudeville group. Could have he learned something while on tour with Lulu Hurst japanese equivalents, strongmen, acrobats, dancers, impoverished (but skilled) samurai accepting challenges from any comers and the like?
BTW, Ueshiba taught dancers too and I think I've read somewhere he awarded one a high rank,

I think the story is Ushiba watched a Noh dancer and said something like.."He gets it" and awarded him 10 Dan.
I'll try to look it up.
I suppose the debate is what he saw or was looking for and no one else saw. I was a bit intrigued by some of the things I read of what was supposedly a secret school teaching. Of course you usually find out one school's secret teachings were anothers schools daily grind. And that these things were all over Asia.
Then again if the argument holds that the basic tenants of IP were all over Asia, it is easy to think Takeda got it from....all over Japan. and that Tanamo taught him aiki
We now know that Takeda told Sagawa NEVER to talk about his solo training. It was "expected" that you do that work on your own outside of pratice or teaching, with Sagawa stating it was the source of creating his aiki.
Tanamo might have done "something" in secret as well? I think it is equally "wild speculation" to easily dismiss that Takeda attributted his aiki to him. Which is why Ellis tried to pursue it.
Cheers
Dan

While overtly, these training methods do rebuild the body to move in a certain way that is more martially valid, that rebuilds the body to be structurally more solid yet also freely mobile, and to wield weapons in a very capable manner, why does THAT mean that these training methodologies ALSO teach other internal specific skills such as intent created spirals?